Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65195 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22952 of 2015 Petitioner :- Udai Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Devesh Vikram,Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri Awadh Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 3.3.2015 passed by respondent no.3 and request to issue direction to the respondents to grant and release gratuity along with interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.8.2008 and after his retirement, the institution of the petitioner sent all the relevant papers to respondent nos. 3 & 4 regarding the grant to release all retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner. According to the respondents, after receipt of the papers regarding pensionary benefits, respondent no.2 has fixed pension of the petitioner and thereafter except gratuity all retiral benefits has been paid, including monthly pension. As the gratuity is a fundamental right, the petitioner is entitled to release of gratuity as per the provisions of the Act, but despite repeated requests, the respondents have not keen to release the gratuity. Left with no option, petitioner has filed Writ A No. 57598 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.10.2014, with the following directions: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4. The petitioner was employed as Head Master in the institution in question. He retired from service on 30.06.2008. His grievance is that though all his retiral benefits have been paid to him yet his gratuity has not been released till date. He has made a representation dated 12.02.14 in this regard. In the circumstances of the case, without adjudicating merits of the claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide aforesaid representation dated 12.02.14 in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before him and if for some reason the gratuity is not payable to the petitioner, the reasons thereof be communicated to the petitioner forthwith." 4. Consequent to the said directions, respondent no.3 has passed the impugned orders on 3.3.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has not made any application/request within 90 days for release of gratuity. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is no specific provision with regard to making of application/option, but the respondents have illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that identical issue arose before this Court and subsequently, the issue was settled by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 1803/2018, which reads as below: "Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are at one with the view taken by the High Court that mere exercise of option by an employee, to avail the benefit of extension of age of retirement to 60 years, could not have operated against his entitlement to gratuity; and exercising of such an option will not deprive the private respondents to gratuity unless and until the establishment i.e., the petitioner-University, was exempted in strict compliance of Section 5 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after prior approval of the State Government. There being no such exemption availed by the petitioner-University, the High Court has rightly not interfered with the principal part of the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. On the other hand, the High Court has been rather considerate to the petitioner in reducing the rate of interest awarded to the private respondents from 10% to 6% p.a. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Hence, these special leave petitions stand dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of." 7. Hence, the issue involved is only with regard to release of gratuity and rejection was mainly on the sole ground of not filing option/request within 90 days. 8. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order is contrary to the said observations. Hence, the impugned order dated 3.3.2015 is set aside, directing the respondents to release gratuity to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. As far as interest is concerned, the respondents are directed to pay the same in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid order, as per the provisions of the Act. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad